With A Passion

Old As All Fuck

Ms. Ferraro, now known as Definitely A Part Of The Problem, told voters that the Obama camp is sexist:

it wasn’t so much they were referring to gender, it was the way they attacked her. What happened in this race is every time you raised the issue, you’re accused of playing the gender card. Latent sexism has been around in this country for a long time, in this campaign it was patent.

Who knew she was from the same town in Denial that Hillary is from.

Hey Joe … You Suck. LIEberman Indeed.

I went to the El-P show last night. He’s still a decent stage performer, but I’m having a harder time differentiating El the rapper and El the conspiracy theorist. Kidz in the Hall who have no stage presence, were at least decent on the mic about Obama. El said mid way through his set that he’d take that positivity and turn it into negativity. Who were we to believe the system isn’t rigged down to the smallest fiber optics? Naive fools.

Yes, the 2000 election was stolen. No, Bush is not responsible for Sept. 11. Yes, the 2004 election felt tainted but not nearly as much as 2000. Yes, the state of voting machines is sad. But let’s wait for this upcoming election to say it’s all rigged.

In a way, this Obama V McCain will be the litmus test for America and it’s people. What’s America if not it’s people? I’d say it’s the government, as they make the decisions to invade, protect, kill, and to forget. If John McCain wins the upcoming election, I’m almost ready to say it’s for one of two reasons. America’s voters are racist and unable to see that this isn’t a fucking choice, it’s a slaughter.

I’ve been envisioning debates that are each summed up by the same headline OBAMA KO’S MCCAIN. Watching the candidates so much during the primaries, it doesn’t even look close if it’s Obama vs. McCain. Aside from the issues, which Obama also kills McCain on, Hillary seems like the exact same person that McCain is. Maybe that’s because they’re just such good friends, Hil and John; I know not.

I’d never read The Economist until late last night on the N train home. Recently, I’d seen it on a stack of magazines in a Dem. voting friend of mine’s apartment, and to see Obama on the cover with the headline “Almost There,” I bit the lure. I almost choked on the damn thing, though, when I read the words,

“To the white working man and woman, he has been seen too often as an aloof elitist, who can’t drink whisky, displays a suspiciously familiarity with the price of an arugula salad and memorably bowled a deplorable 37 in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Toffishness doomed John Kerry; but with Mr Obama, a child of a single mother who sometimes used food stamps, that picture is surely reversible.”
The Economist, May 10th-16th 2008 edition

No analysis of these topics and events being completely inconsequential to the major pressing issues at hand. They laud him on not going with the flow on the gas tax b.s., and, in the above quotation, show how the picture currently painted isn’t the whole picture, but the phrase “who can’t drink whisky,” isn’t entirely honest to the reader.

It’s not that he’s allergic to whisky, he just didn’t make the same blatant photo op that Hillary did when she was trying to hold onto Indiana, which she barely did. At this point, I’m pretty sure the entire Clinton Campaign bus, even High Mighty D-Bag McAuliffe are running to the Crown Royal. Obama isn’t the un-panderer, though, he, much like Hill and McCain, went on the WWE to throw some of the fake blood on their decency. I know the paragraph is about the public’s perception of Obama, but what the Economist and others must know is that they have a great part in shaping the public’s p.o.v. on these things.